Wikipedia:Featured article review/Manchester City F.C./archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Marskell 17:27, 31 October 2009 [1].

Manchester City F.C.[edit]

Toolbox
Notified: Oldelpaso, WikiProject Football

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe it no longer meets the standards. Having just strenuously dragged Luton Town F.C. to FA, I'm in good stead to recognise areas where this article fails; these include, but are not limited to (I have only had a scan through):

  1. . The club history suffers heavily from recentism (about half of it focusses on the past ten years)
  2. . The "is/are" argument that dogged the Luton Town promotion is still not resolved here. Either one is fine by me, but it's very jarring when it keeps on switching from one to the other
  3. . Explanation required for flags (see key implemented in Luton Town article)
  4. . The "managers" section, while derivative to the Manchester City managers page, could be a little more interesting
  5. . The "supporters" section is perilously under-referenced, as is much of the page (while it may be covered by the books, in-line citations would be reassuring) – some parts even occur beyond 2002 (the date of the most recent book citation) and are unreferenced (see "ownership" in particular)
  6. . The "1988/89" format of season is about – for the sake of consistency, 1988–89 please – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This FAR has probably been on the cards for a while. A revamp has been to my to-do list for a long time, but without actually getting done. I guess I'd better expedite my efforts. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Midway through adding more references. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The history had a bit of that frequent Wikipedia phenomenon, the addition of recent events in a line by line fashion as they occur. I've trimmed this down. This was also the cause of season format inconsistency, which is now fixed. Discretionary plurals have been something I've not done anything with since the article was on the main page, when there was a back and forth the whole day. It put me off intervening on the issue for life. Personally I favour use of the discretionary plural for "Manchester City", "the team" etc but the singular for "the club". No doubt others will disagree. I'm not aware of a consensus on a key for the squadlist. Luton would appear to be the only one for which it is used. It strikes me as entirely superfluous. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally agree with your stance, but I'm sure you remember I faced a mighty battle to get LTFC featured – one of the things I had to do was use the "American "is""… I don't think it would have trickled over the line without it, due to the American contingent on Wikipedia. I remember that one of the points raised was that it should be consistent, and I do agree with that: I, in your shoes, would therefore go along with it. It's up to you though. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the squadlist nationality key, I seem to recall somebody pointing out at the LTFC FAC that flags should be defined for people who may not recognise them (It was at MOS:FLAG unless I'm much mistaken). – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 07:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appear to have been an objection at the Luton Town FAC, but in any case, I simply do not see how the key helps. In terms of accessibility, a user using a screen reader will already have "flag of x" in the relevant place. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do seem to remember a debate about the key, but no matter. I believe the matter is not so much that as that people may not recognise flags of the world. This is surely a very important issue for clubs such as Manchester City, where the squad includes players from all over the world. It's just my opinion, but I think that although they are often a little superfluous, they are sometimes helpful and add more than they detract. I would therefore be in favour of a key – but, it's your choice. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Token remove - Just because it's Citeh. Just kidding. But I do still think that this article should be demoted, purely because it isn't referenced anywhere near well enough, particularly in the History section, but also in the Club records, Stadium, and Supporters sections. The stats for the notable former managers could also do with a reference. – PeeJay 22:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone seems to think that File:ManCity1904.jpg is copyrighted, which could be possible, since we don't know when it was first published. DrKiernan (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing should be sorted out now. Feel free to tag anything I may have missed with {{cn}}. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, refs look grand now; now to work on the actual content of the article (I've just had a quick run-through so may not have caught everything):
  1. in a lot of places you use "F.C." and "A.F.C." in club names. I'd expand them to their full forms (e.g. "Football Club")
    Not sure about this. As long as the clubs are linked, there's little advantage, since this is clearly an article about football, to continually state "football club"... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Players and staff": Still no key? Suit yourself, but I don't see what's wrong with having them.
    I guess you're referring to the flags? They all link to the relevant countries, and this isn't Luton, the key would be as large as the list of players and staff...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Players and staff": I'd rename "Hall of fame" to "Notable former players": not all of the players in the linked article will be in the hall of fame, after all.
    Hmm. Perhaps you may not be aware of the dangers of a section called "Notable former players"... One man's "notable player" is another man's donkey. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Players and staff": As I mentioned before, the managers section could be much more informative.
    It could be but that's why we have content forks which should cover these specific things in much more detail. No point in repeating information. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "Supporters": "Manchester City has a large fanbase in relation to their comparative lack of success on the pitch." Oh dear. It's Manchester City have, the club has. You can have either "The club has a large fanbase in relation to its comparative lack of success on the pitch" or "Manchester City have a large fanbase in relation to their comparative lack of success on the pitch", but not a mixture of the two!
    Common fault. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "Supporters": "A common stereotype is that City fans come from Manchester proper, while United fans come from elsewhere. A 2002 report by a researcher at Manchester Metropolitan University found that a higher proportion of City season ticket holders came from Manchester postcode areas (City 40%, United 29%). United had a higher number of season ticket holders living in Manchester postcode areas, as they had more season ticket holders overall, and the report contained a caveat that the number of City season tickets had since increased (the report was compiled before City's move to the City of Manchester Stadium), and following stadium expansion United have more than doubled their number of season ticket holders." ...what? This whole paragraph is very hard to follow grammatically – I'd rephrase it thus: "A common stereotype is that City fans come from Manchester proper, while United fans come from elsewhere. A 2002 report by a researcher at Manchester Metropolitan University found that while it was true that a higher proportion of City season ticket holders came from Manchester postcode areas (40% compared to United's 29%), there were more United season ticket holders, the lower percentage being due to United's higher overall number of season ticket holders (27,667 compared to City's 16,481). However, the report warned that since the compiling of data in 2001, the number of both City and United season ticket holders had risen: City's move to the City of Manchester Stadium has caused season ticket sales to increase "considerably", while United's expansion of Old Trafford has seen their number of season ticket holders double[Incidentally this final point needs to be referenced.]."
  7. In "Honours", I'd expand names to their full titles (First Division → Football League First Division) and space out name changes a bit to make them easier to read (Football League First Division/Premier League → Football League First Division / Premier League). Also, why aren't the seasons linked to their relevant competitions – for example, for the 1936–37 League championship, why not link to 1936–37 Football League?
    Of course, you understand the complexities of stating that the First Division is now the Second and the Premier League used to be the First and that League One was Division Three... But sure, the competitions have been expanded, although I now think this will be confusing. Seasons all appear linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
#In "Stadium": "state-of-the-art"? This is an encyclopaedia, not a brochure.
  1. Also in "Stadium": "47,726-seater" → "47,726 all-seater"
  2. Also in "Stadium": "in East Manchester ("Eastlands")" → "in East Manchester (giving it the nickname "Eastlands")"
  3. Also in "Stadium": "Before moving to the stadium, Manchester City spent in excess of £30 million on upgrading it and lowering the field of play from ground level (where it was during the Commonwealth Games) to below ground level, adding an additional tier of seating around the entire pitch and also building the new North Stand." Split this up and reword it, it's hard to navigate. Try this: "Before moving to the stadium, Manchester City spent more than £30 million on redevelopment: a new North Stand was built, and the field of play was lowered from ground level (its position during the Commonwealth Games) in order to enable the construction of a additional tier of seating around the pitch."
  4. Also in "Stadium": Is the first match at the ground really relevant? The result certainly isn't.
    This seems a little picky to me. The fact it was a spanking new stadium opened with a friendly against one of the best club sides in the world which City won is interesting enough for inclusion. Taking it out wouldn't achieve much. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Also in "Stadium": "Manchester City have also used several other grounds during their history. After playing home games at five different grounds between 1880 and 1887, the club settled at Hyde Road and stayed for 36 years. After a fire destroyed the Main Stand in 1920, the club decided to look for a new site, moving to the 84,000-capacity Maine Road in 1923, which was nicknamed the "Wembley of the North" by designers. On 3 March 1934, Maine Road hosted the largest-ever crowd at an English club ground, when 84,569 attended an FA Cup tie against Stoke City. Maine Road was redeveloped several times over its 80-year lifespan, though by 1995 its capacity was restricted to 32,000, prompting the move to the City of Manchester Stadium." No, no, no. Try "Manchester City have used several grounds during their history: after playing home matches at five different stadia between 1880 and 1887, the club settled at Hyde Road, its home for 36 years. After a fire destroyed the Main Stand in 1920, the club started to seek a new site and moved to the 84-000 capacity Maine Road three years later. Maine Road, nicknamed the "Wembley of the North" by its designers, hosted the largest-ever crowd at an English club ground when 84,569 attended an FA Cup tie against Stoke City on 3 March 1934. Though Maine Road was redeveloped several times over its 80-year lifespan, by 1995 its capacity was restricted to 32,000, prompting the search for a new ground which culminated in the move to the City of Manchester Stadium in 2003."
  6. Also in "Stadium": "Its capacity of 47,726 is the fourth highest in the FA Premier League." Two things; firstly, why is this at the end of a paragraph talking about old grounds? Move it up to the end of the first in "Stadium". Secondly, FA Premier League.
  7. "Ownership": Shinawatra is constantly referred to by his first name: is this deliberate? It seems to me very unorthodox in tone for an encyclopaedia.
Overall, looks on the way to being kept if you follow my suggestions. Keep up the good work. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of quick responses:
2: I'd like to get some wider input on this one.
3: Changed from {{main}} to {{tl:seealso}}, which is more precise in this case.
5: I will sort this issue out, but I'll probably do it after addressing everything else.
15: The standard form of address for a Thai person in a formal context is the forename, see for example [2] from today's press.
Will address things related to prose in due course. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Link checker shows that references 41 and 52 are to dead links, and references 2 and 34 need further formatting to match the style of the other web cites. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still active on this, but unfortunately from today I will be away for a week and thus offline. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Duly noted. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 07:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm happy to address any remaining issues in Oldelpaso's absence. I made a start on responding to some of the comments above. It would be particularly helpful if we could have a summary of outstanding issues as it's got a bit mixed up... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Points still outstanding as 18 October 2009:
        • "Notable players", to me, can be easily defined: either holds a record, or played 100 matches. Easy.
          • Not exactly. Either of those are subjective. What about a player who won the FA Cup with a broken neck? That's really notable but doesn't meet your criteria. And as I said earlier, we have forks for lists of players. Check out how many players meet your criteria here - this information belongs in a fork, not in the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think we must have misunderstood each other: I'm not saying this does belong in a main article! Just leave this one as it is. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 10:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see how giving the full names of competitions under "honours" can be confusing if you give the level or tier with it (as is currently done)...
        • On the flag key, it's a difficult one for me because on the one hand, you are right that it would take up a lot of room and skew the page quite a bit; but on the other hand, how many people in the world can, at a glance, identify the flag of, for example, Togo (no offence to Togo intended)? Hmm. Well, it could probably be said that you can simply click the link through if you're not sure of a nationality: for this reason I'm not going to be too strict about this one.
        • On F.C. and A.F.C.: I don't know about you, it just doesn't read as well to me. It's a matter of flow, not of clarification. Try to read it through each way a few times and you'll probably see what I mean.
        • Re-write the supporters section; have a look above for my suggestion
        • Ditto stadium section
        • Cheers, – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator indicated on user talk he had no more concerns and there's nothing coming from anyone else. So a keep! Marskell (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Manchester_City_F.C./archive2&oldid=1138477382"